psyon wrote:Rights are a social construct, they are an agreement between people. Contrary to what is believed, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. We may believe that certain rights are inalienable, but they aren't. The right to live is often touted as an inalienable right, but society takes that right away from people by executing them. The people around you, the people who you think opinion's should not matter on how you manage your land, they are who grant you your rights. They are who agree to uphold your rights. If at any point in time, the overwhelming majority of people are fed up with your land management practices, they can take your right to be secure in your property away. They can do this by changing laws, or by forming a mob and running you out. Either way, your right is only as strong as the support it has from the people around you.

I think that is well said there are of course no guarantees in life but we have as a country chosen a basic framework of common values and agreed to live under a common constitution, choosing to disregard that is cultural suicide. As to the topic at hand 13 states, with more joining have seen fit add provisions to protect what i enjoy doing in the last couple decades to their constitutions and that gives me great hope my kids will have the option to choose to enjoy the same pursuits i do, my father and grandfather did.

Dude, you just agreed with everyone assaulting your Fifth Amendment rights. The man just told you that the rights you treasure are meaningless. He said the Constitution has no role in the rule of law.

The right to hunt and fish amendments are state protections not Federal and really only serve to protect your state right to pursue lawful activity and protects you from those that would interfere with lawful activity. (What you need is a Federal Constitutional Amendment especially with the trend towards ignoring states rights). To agree with pyson that a mob grants you your rights and can take them at will is insane.

psyon wrote:The Constitution does not grant rights, people do. If people didn't support the Constitution, it wouldn't mean anything. Who enforces the rights granted by the constitution? People do. If the overwhelming majority of the population wants things to change, they can amend the constitution, or out right start to disregard it. . People do not always agree with it. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibited the consumption of alcohol. That certainly didn't stop people, and juries refused to convict people of violating the law. As a result, the Constitution was amended again, to repeal prohibition.

Interesting that you quoted the 18th amendment as far as is coming to me right now that may be the first and only constitutional amendment to LIMIT common freedom rather than add to it. We should never as a society ever allow this to happen again. We need more freedom, not less to use the constitution to limit freedom in my opinion is a complete misuse of the intentions of the document and the founders of this country.

Bob wrote:Dude, you just agreed with everyone assaulting your Fifth Amendment rights. The man just told you that the rights you treasure are meaningless. He said the Constitution has no role in the rule of law.

That's not what I said at all. I never said they were meaningless, and I never said the Constitution has no role.

Bob wrote:To agree with pyson that a mob grants you your rights and can take them at will is insane.

The Constitution, can be, and has been amended. And a persons rights to live HAVE been taken away by mobs in the past. It may not be legal under the law, but would you be able to convict a person that everyone in the area supports? Wasn't that a large problem with blacks being murdered in the south in the early part of the century? It certainly wasn't legal to lynch a black man for sleeping with a white woman, but in many places, you couldn't find a jury or judge who would convict a person for doing it.

psyon wrote:Rights are a social construct, they are an agreement between people. Contrary to what is believed, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. We may believe that certain rights are inalienable, but they aren't. The right to live is often touted as an inalienable right, but society takes that right away from people by executing them. The people around you, the people who you think opinion's should not matter on how you manage your land, they are who grant you your rights. They are who agree to uphold your rights. If at any point in time, the overwhelming majority of people are fed up with your land management practices, they can take your right to be secure in your property away. They can do this by changing laws, or by forming a mob and running you out. Either way, your right is only as strong as the support it has from the people around you.

I think that is well said there are of course no guarantees in life but we have as a country chosen a basic framework of common values and agreed to live under a common constitution, choosing to disregard that is cultural suicide. As to the topic at hand 13 states, with more joining have seen fit add provisions to protect what i enjoy doing in the last couple decades to their constitutions and that gives me great hope my kids will have the option to choose to enjoy the same pursuits i do, my father and grandfather did.

Dude, you just agreed with everyone assaulting your Fifth Amendment rights. The man just told you that the rights you treasure are meaningless. He said the Constitution has no role in the rule of law.

The right to hunt and fish amendments are state protections not Federal and really only serve to protect your state right to pursue lawful activity and protects you from those that would interfere with lawful activity. (What you need is a Federal Constitutional Amendment especially with the trend towards ignoring states rights). To agree with pyson that a mob grants you your rights and can take them at will is insane.

no i really didn't agree with having my fifth amendment right assaulted I haven't even begun to wrap this around federal constitution at this point my statements are focused on the individual states, not federal. Just because i thought his point was well said does not mean i 100% agree with it. Note this quote from my statement

"we have as a country chosen a basic framework of common values and agreed to live under a common constitution, to disregard that is cultural suicide"

what i do agree with psyon's statement if i can take some liberty and paraphrase, feel free to correct me if i'm off base psyon is that if enough of us decide the constitution is no longer worth defending it will only be worth the paper it is written on. This is true of all covenants. If this ever happens I sincerely hope I am not alive to see it.

John Vanek wrote:I think what Pyson means is that while the constitution claims we have inalienable rights, the only reason we supposedly have them is because the constitution says so. It's circular. Also, I think you are interpreting "we" as "Americans" while Pyson is using "we" to refer to "Homo sapiens.

Defining "we" to mean Americans only pushes the point even further. The US Constitution does NOT apply outside of the US, so any rights granted by it are meaningless when you in foreign territory.

psyon wrote:Squinn, it seems you explained what you feel your rights are, but not what a right is.

Exactly... which is what most people do... because not even the Critical Rights Theorists can agree on exactly what a 'right' is. Bob actually did a much better job than most, and at least touched upon some key ideas.

'Rights' in America are certainly tied to the notion of 'personal property'. For instance... a case I argued at a National Collegiate Ethics Bowl (at Chico State) revolved around some people who had been arrested for having guns in their cars when they went to work. They claimed their 'constitutional right' to own a gun, as personal property, and had the guns inside their vehicles, which were also their 'personal property'... but they took their personal property(s) and moved them onto someone else's 'personal property' and violated their 'right' NOT to have guns on their property.

So...'personal freedom' vs 'public protections'... which has precedence? As a 'homeowner' I would have thought I had the right to walk out and get my morning newspaper in the nude...but apparently I do not...

I'm not a radical ecologist hell bent against progress and civilization, although I will admit to being a 'Gaiaist' since 1969. I believe the whole Earth is one large living organism, of which humans are but one tiny part of. We, as a species, are rapidly destroying the infrastructure that supports us, and only now starting to realize it... can we turn it around?...maybe...but probably not.

It's all a matter of perspectives... if you know the history of life on Earth, and what a extremely short time we 'civilized' humans have been around (a 5,000 yr interglacial warm spell) AND the damage we have done/and are feverishly doing... our chances of even making it to even half the average age (10 mil) of a species seems very unlikely.

So yeah... I find it somewhat, lets say, bemusing to see people (from individuals to Nations) focused on their little short-sighted problems and claiming 'I own this, and I own that' and I have 'rights'...

As for the raccoons... they seem to be a resource that thrives in your area... raise them for their fur, and hope coonskin coats become 'fashionable' again. jim

Wow... almost a whole nother pg since I began typing (one-handed.. ) I GOTTA get me that dragon program...

Wow, that is simply anarchy and show a TOTAL lack of awareness of the constitution.

In our nation we do indeed have inalienable rights which are derived from the constitution and require no approval of those around you. The constitution can be amended to support previously unconstitutional law, but never revoked without dismantling the Union. NOBODY can just waive these principles on a whim.

This is a short sighted slippery slope line of thinking that you are taking here. Think about the possible consequences in your own life.

Actually, it doesn't. Think about what you just said, you spoke of "inalienable rights" derived from "the constitution". If they were truly, by definition, "inalienable" you really wouldn't have a process to amend or eliminate such so called "inalienable" rights. Since there is a constitution needed to qualify them (and a system to interpret and limit them), and a process in this constitution to change so called "inalienable" rights (and those amendments are not just limited to affecting "previously unconstitutional law" and can be effectively "revoked without dismantling the union" (by introducing a contradictory amendment)... they are not truly "inalienable" and are, in fact, given by "men" that wrote, amend, and interpret the constitution.

psyon wrote:The Constitution does not grant rights, people do. If people didn't support the Constitution, it wouldn't mean anything. Who enforces the rights granted by the constitution? People do. If the overwhelming majority of the population wants things to change, they can amend the constitution, or out right start to disregard it. . People do not always agree with it. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibited the consumption of alcohol. That certainly didn't stop people, and juries refused to convict people of violating the law. As a result, the Constitution was amended again, to repeal prohibition.

If you actually read my post I mentioned the amendment process, I also explained that if the people as a whole decide to disregard it the nation ceases to exist. When that happens we chose a different system, or more likely someone imposes their will on the majority. Until then, we live under rule of law which derives it's authority granted by the Constitution. Certainly the power of the Constitution was granted by WE THE PEOPLE which makes it so unique and special.

I understand what your point is, but it is semantics...until you claim that the Constitution is a figment that can be taken or left, followed or ignored on a whim. Like I said, you are describing anarchy and regressive lawless behavior. As long as we live under the Constitution, no mob or individual can take rights from anyone. Someone can take a life in muder, but that certainly does not make the Constitution irrelevant in any way... it just means they acted illegally.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that you would care to live without Constitutional rule of law, but a flippant attitude towards such a document/model that BILLIONS of people would love to fall under the umbrella of seems wrong to me having seen first hand the consequences of the alternatives.

Bob wrote:Dude, you just agreed with everyone assaulting your Fifth Amendment rights. The man just told you that the rights you treasure are meaningless. He said the Constitution has no role in the rule of law.

That's not what I said at all. I never said they were meaningless, and I never said the Constitution has no role.

I took your argument that a mob of neighbors could grant and take rights too literally then, because the 'mob' would have to take the steps outlined in the Constitution and take action legally.

Wow, that is simply anarchy and show a TOTAL lack of awareness of the constitution.

In our nation we do indeed have inalienable rights which are derived from the constitution and require no approval of those around you. The constitution can be amended to support previously unconstitutional law, but never revoked without dismantling the Union. NOBODY can just waive these principles on a whim.

This is a short sighted slippery slope line of thinking that you are taking here. Think about the possible consequences in your own life.

Actually, it doesn't. Think about what you just said, you spoke of "inalienable rights" derived from "the constitution". If they were truly, by definition, "inalienable" you really wouldn't have a process to amend or eliminate such so called "inalienable" rights. Since there is a constitution needed to qualify them (and a system to interpret and limit them), and a process in this constitution to change so called "inalienable" rights (and those amendments are not just limited to affecting "previously unconstitutional law" and can be effectively "revoked without dismantling the union" (by introducing a contradictory amendment)... they are not truly "inalienable" and are, in fact, given by "men" that wrote, amend, and interpret the constitution.

Jimbo, I think you are trying to separate the Declaration of Independence (where the term inalienable rights appears) from the constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the "Constitution is the body and letter of which and the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."

For this argument concerning property rights John Locke's writings are very pertinent and enlightening.

As Critical Rights Theory is a 'hobby' of mine, I'll go ahead and advance some theories/positions I'm developing. At the risk of charges of 'arrogance', arguments over the constitution are still somewhat 'unsophisticated'

The crux of the problem in defining what a right 'is' lies in the dichotomy twixt 'personal freedom' and 'public protection'. I would suggest that ALL current rights arise from negative actions of individuals against groups of people (the public). If no one had ever killed another, we'd have no need to claim a right to 'life'... if no one had ever prevented 'free speech', we'd have no need to claim it as a 'right'... right on down the line... look at every right you claim, and there will be always be instances where that 'right' was abused, prompting the establishment of 'laws' saying 'no one is allowed to do that', which we CALL rights.

MOST people seem to assert 'rights' as protections of 'their ability to choose what they want to do (freedoms)' when in fact 'rights' were established to protect them from other people imposing their desires UPON them.

So... between the two, 'personal freedom' vs 'public protections'... I have to take 'public protections' as the primary purpose of 'rights'.

Take even your 'right' to gun ownership... it was never written to mean every person had the right to an uzi... it was included to allow States (public) to raise militias AGAINST Federal excesses. In fact... the whole 'Bill of Rights' were written and included in the constitution as 'protection against federal excesses' for the states, as a compromise to get the Southern states to ratify the constitution and join the union. Pretty damn different from how they interpret them today... jim

I think the best option is the least impactful one... relocate the wood piles, rockpiles etc, away from the house. As a dog owner I know how tough it can be to control them in a large yard so perhaps some fencing would be in order.

Here in Phoenix AZ we "relocate" vipers all the time. The rule is generally within a mile of the original site where it was found. Studies have been done to back that up. I am not sure if they apply to Timbers or other East Coast viper species though.

Also, if you dont want snakes in the yard, eliminate their reason to be there....food. Rodents are the primary food source, so remove any food items that may attract them. And work to remove hiding/nesting areas for them too.

As far as individual poster's with crap attitudes and the "thick skin" statement.... those people need to just get over themselves IMO.

Good luck and keep us posted... perhaps post a few pics of your local "residents" so the rest of us can see what you have.

Bob wrote:I took your argument that a mob of neighbors could grant and take rights too literally then, because the 'mob' would have to take the steps outlined in the Constitution and take action legally.

"Legally" being the key word there. A mob can quickly burn down your house, or deprive you of your life, and nothing in the law will bring you or your house back. The people who did it may get convicted, but that doesn't do much to protect your rights with regard to your property and life. If you piss enough people off, nothing stops them from infringing on every right you have. The law can step in, but if enough people are against you, the law would have a hard time prosecuting anyone for the crimes. Look at what happens in this country already. Laws that protect your rights are only a deterrent. We hope that people fear fines and imprisonment enough that they will obey the laws, and respect your rights, but that is not always the case.

Legality can be a grey area as well. What if our country had a revolution like others seen in the world recently, and the new government stepped in and stripped away most of our rights. Would that be legal?

hellihooks wrote:As Critical Rights Theory is a 'hobby' of mine, I'll go ahead and advance some theories/positions I'm developing. At the risk of charges of 'arrogance', arguments over the constitution are still somewhat 'unsophisticated'

The crux of the problem in defining what a right 'is' lies in the dichotomy twixt 'personal freedom' and 'public protection'. I would suggest that ALL current rights arise from negative actions of individuals against groups of people (the public). If no one had ever killed another, we'd have no need to claim a right to 'life'... if no one had ever prevented 'free speech', we'd have no need to claim it as a 'right'... right on down the line... look at every right you claim, and there will be always be instances where that 'right' was abused, prompting the establishment of 'laws' saying 'no one is allowed to do that', which we CALL rights.

MOST people seem to assert 'rights' as protections of 'their ability to choose what they want to do (freedoms)' when in fact 'rights' were established to protect them from other people imposing their desires UPON them.

So... between the two, 'personal freedom' vs 'public protections'... I have to take 'public protections' as the primary purpose of 'rights'.

Take even your 'right' to gun ownership... it was never written to mean every person had the right to an uzi... it was included to allow States (public) to raise militias AGAINST Federal excesses. In fact... the whole 'Bill of Rights' were written and included in the constitution as 'protection against federal excesses' for the states, as a compromise to get the Southern states to ratify the constitution and join the union. Pretty damn different from how they interpret them today... jim

For the record, I was saying that the concept of human behavior being disconnected from the natural world does imply a pompous position. I think our behaviors and societal structures are much more closely tied to the natural world than we know or admit. I'm not saying you believe the following (but it implied as much to me), some who take the 'cosmic' view for lack of better term tend to think of nature as more of a deity rather than a whole to which we belong. As such I believe our assertion of rights and laws are a natural way to help us as a species survive and are critical for us as a functioning species.

As for "personal vs public rights" my view is what is good for the 'individual' (i.e. liberty to pursue happiness and success) generally benefits society as a whole rather than a select few. Therefore basic rights that fulfill our innate need for freedom also serve to support a workable society and are critical to the whole balancing act. It is in our common interest to resist aberrant tyrannical threats to the individual...rebel when authority becomes too influential. That is why I find extreme religion, as well as overbearing government, to be stifling to man. Makes us different from ants anyway.

As such I believe our assertion of rights and laws are a natural way to help us as a species survive and are critical for us as a functioning species.

I agree with you there, and I evidence for this can be observed among other primates as well. The Japanese Macaques that use the hot springs in that country have a structure in their society that only grants the right to enter the springs to higher ranking females and their family. Many other primates live by rules that govern dominance among the groups as well.

Bob wrote:I took your argument that a mob of neighbors could grant and take rights too literally then, because the 'mob' would have to take the steps outlined in the Constitution and take action legally.

"Legally" being the key word there. A mob can quickly burn down your house, or deprive you of your life, and nothing in the law will bring you or your house back. The people who did it may get convicted, but that doesn't do much to protect your rights with regard to your property and life. If you piss enough people off, nothing stops them from infringing on every right you have. The law can step in, but if enough people are against you, the law would have a hard time prosecuting anyone for the crimes. Look at what happens in this country already. Laws that protect your rights are only a deterrent. We hope that people fear fines and imprisonment enough that they will obey the laws, and respect your rights, but that is not always the case.

Legality can be a grey area as well. What if our country had a revolution like others seen in the world recently, and the new government stepped in and stripped away most of our rights. Would that be legal?

Right IMO, the Constitution is the basis of law and ensures that law protects our rights. The law may not be able to physically stop an illegal act but it does provide an avenue for deterrence and justice. Equal justice is a key element in the constitution.

A revolution would indeed technically end the USA and the first step, as in other countries would have to be to establish either a new constitution or another framework of authority and thus law. But our Constitution makes such an event nearly impossible because it caters to and recognizes human nature. Unless we as a people suddenly changed and deplored liberty then it would have to be a violent minority that tried to fundamentally change the way we are governed right? The Constitution also provides for defense of the nation in such a case.

Our nation is very unique in that all this was thought out ahead of time rather than figured out by trial and error over the centuries. We certainly have amended things for the better or worse as our paradigms change. But IMO we are still making great progress and are an example to others warts and all. So many 'reformed' nations take basic concepts codified in the Constitution in order to establish and protect their own rights.

As such I believe our assertion of rights and laws are a natural way to help us as a species survive and are critical for us as a functioning species.

I agree with you there, and I evidence for this can be observed among other primates as well. The Japanese Macaques that use the hot springs in that country have a structure in their society that only grants the right to enter the springs to higher ranking females and their family. Many other primates live by rules that govern dominance among the groups as well.

Great example, wolves are another. It does take a fairly advanced species to cognitively develop, implement and enforce such rules of behavior.

Bob wrote:The Constitution also provides for defense of the nation in such a case

That protection is still only there if people are choosing to support and defend the constitution. When people revolt, they may very well just disregard the constitution as whole until things stabilize again.

Bob wrote:The Constitution also provides for defense of the nation in such a case

That protection is still only there if people are choosing to support and defend the constitution. When people revolt, they may very well just disregard the constitution as whole until things stabilize again.

The folks doing the revolting would be choosing not to use the built in measures by which to change it. Like I said, because the concept is in harmony with the human spirit (the basic brilliance of the system we enjoy), it would take a massive shift in human behaviors or a government that ignored the Constitution thus infringing on the rights of the majority for that to happen. If government is seen to be asserting too much power in any facet of life we change things peacefully. We need leadership but we never give them full trust or power. (Which is why I always want a split Congress...gridlock is intended to keep rash ideas from being implemented.)

YES! Americans must be ready to understand, support and defend the Constitution because it is what we are. Not to be seen as flag waving because that is not my point, but having lived and worked overseas for much of my life I have seen how others fight to have what we often take for granted. I worked at US Embassy Cairo and have friends , that while supporting the changes are very worried about the possibility that they are about to move from a corrupt self serving regime to a brutal one rather than realizing the freedoms they long for. It could go either way IMO. My father was a involved with relocating exiles from behind the Iron Curtain in the early 70's and we heard horror stories. People risked it all to be free they had to because there was not a Constitution for and by the people to uphold or defend. The void left far to much room for the self serving to rule unchallenged...until it all became too over bearing and they rose up. If we just taught our kids a bit more about why we are free, or even that we are free because of the foresight of the founders it would go along way towards keeping those rights and freedoms.

beast wrote:Spoken like a true hugger that has to push his beliefs on everyone else....

You can go all Tim Treadwell with your rattlesnake friends if you want but don't tell people how to conduct themselves on their property.

beast wrote:I'll use whatever handle I want and who are you to tell me how to conduct myself on this forum?

I'm always fascinated by the people who go around saying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?!?", while they go around....telling other people what to do. If you really don't like people giving advice to others about what they should and shouldn't do, then why are you giving them advice yourself?

squinn wrote:I think on some level you are attempting to compare apples to carbeurators here...i am doubtful the reptilian brain can quite register the dehabituation concept in the same manner a bear can, and I assure you the day a mountain lion wanders on my property it will be the last time it does so as i will be drinking my morning coffee from from a mug crafted from it's skull, I will not take a chance with that type of animal around my children

Do you know what the "chance" you're taking is? Considering the incredibly low rate of mountain lion kills in the world over all of recorded history, the "chance" you are taking with "that type of animal" is probably much lower than the chance you are taking when you let your kids near a large dog or inside of a car.

squinn wrote:In many places snakes fall under the legal definition of nuisance wildlife, for that matter in many states cruelty statues do not even cover cold blooded animals which is why Dbags can amuse us all by setting their houses on fire by trying to kill snakes with a lighter and flammable aerosol cans.

You have any evidence for this? I seriously doubt it....you really think that you can go around killing any snake you want because they are "nuisance wildlife"? That might be true for specific species of snakes in specific places, but I strongly doubt the general case.

I'll explain it to you Jonathan...name calling is generally associated with people of low I.Q.s and substituted for rational and in-depth thought...although, it is also used occasionally by those with high I.Q.s as a way to piss off the opponent in an argument and cause them to not think straight...it's quite the conundrum sometimes...

Brian Hubbs wrote: it is also used occasionally by those with high I.Q.s as a way to piss off the opponent in an argument and cause them to not think straight...it's quite the conundrum sometimes...

That only works against people who aren't as smart as you are (or think you are) Actually... name calling, bandwagon appeals, and even emotional appeals are all logical fallacies, and grounds for dismissal in critical discourse... An often-used and effective means of propaganda, for inciting the 'sheeple'...

I will say though... the thought of anyone explaining ANYTHING to Jonathan, made me chuckle.... MC, Hubbs... jim

"My land" thing will be something all property owners eventually learn the limits of, you can do whatever you want on it only until someone more important than you has a stake in it, then you just own the rights to pay the taxes!

In some cases, you won't even be able to dig a pond, add a barn, or plant flowers.. O and did I mention if the government decides there is a better use for it, they can just boot you off? Granted, my family has a large amount of rentals in city and ag leased land in rural areas and have not experienced any issues, but I know plenty of other people who have. Actually, once I had a notice on "my land" that the leaves needed raked lol Also not renting to someone even if they clearly give you the creeps can be problematic. I'm not even saying I disagree with many of the limits of private property. There are times when there is a greater good and we can't have property owners holding things up. I just think it's funny when people tell me they think they can do whatever they want because they pay the taxes on the land.

Hey, all I tried to do in that "other" thread was make a stupid, complex issue a little simpler for the database, but if you want to believe the "science" behind that split, then go ahead. Argue your heart out that it should remain in the database as is. I really don't care. I'm not that passionate about frog names anyway. I just figured that if it's good enough for CA F&G and Stebbins, it's good enough for us...but who am I to say what makes sense. I'm just a kingsnake and turtle guy...and I'm not even arguing for the resurrection of the pond turtle subspecies...

I've never supported or disputed the science behind the split. I've just said that people like myself aren't qualified to evaluate the science behind the split. We can evaluate what will work best for the database, but once we start talking about whether the scientific analysis in that paper is right or wrong then we're getting way beyond my qualification level, and I think that goes for most of us on the forum. As I said there, I have a degree in biophysics, coursework in evolution and mathematics, and a lot of experience with that species complex, but I'm still not remotely qualified to evaluate the scientific merit of that paper.

I don't really think that we as a database should be involved in making scientific evaluations of taxonomy one way or the other - our taxonomy should be based on what others are using and what will work best for the database. But if we are going to make scientific evaluations, then it should be done by a limited pool of members who are actually qualified to evaluate the papers and compare them to what is already known in order to make the most educated decision possible.

Okay, back to the main topic. Don't release captive herps into the wild on your own, and rattlesnakes aren't a threat to you once you've seen them.

squinn wrote:In many places snakes fall under the legal definition of nuisance wildlife, for that matter in many states cruelty statues do not even cover cold blooded animals which is why Dbags can amuse us all by setting their houses on fire by trying to kill snakes with a lighter and flammable aerosol cans.

You have any evidence for this? I seriously doubt it....you really think that you can go around killing any snake you want because they are "nuisance wildlife"? That might be true for specific species of snakes in specific places, but I strongly doubt the general case.

Are you seriously disputing that many states have little or no legal protection for cold blooded animals and invertabrates as far as cruelty statutes go?. I could tell you what they are in my state and surrounding states, but it is fairly simple to do a few keyword searches to prove that statement out. If you are truly interested on the framework of laws concerning this I would encourage you to do some research. Just as a test i did a quick internet search and quite a lot of information supporting that statement from across the country came up, i'm somwhat baffled why you would have to ask me to defend that statement as i'm sure the internet will work the same for you. Maybe we just don't agree on the definition of how many states are required to be "many". My state for instance allows you to jab sharp pointed barbs into salamanders and hang them from monafilament line in deep water, last i checked they were cold blooded vertabrates. Many states may have legal protection for endangered species but nothing in place for common species. I can name several states where killing a snake with no restrictions is perfectly legal but taking them alive and putting them in a glass aquarium is not. Most states aren't into prosecuting 8 year old kids for burning ants with a magnifying glass, set a kitten on fire different story and there may be some wisdom to that.

Thanks for that speech, but I was actually doubting the first part of your statement, not the second. That's why I referred to "nuisance wildlife", not "cruelty to animals".

Since you demand that people google your assertions rather than backing them up yourself, I went ahead and looked up five large states at random (New York, Virginia, Florida, Texas, and California). None of them defined snakes in general as "nuisance wildlife".

In California, all snakes other than rattlesnakes are protected by law, require a hunting license to pursue and either have strict bag limits or "no take".

New York has this law, which mentions that most animals can be taken when they are committing certain destructive actions. Snakes are not even mentioned in the law - they (at least the species not protected by other laws) would only be included in it if they, like most mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and some birds, fit into the criteria for causing a nuisance, not in the general case of just being a snake. Texas and Florida appear to be similar.

On their nuisance wildlife pages, New York and Texas don't mention snakes at all and forcus on things like bears, mountain lions, deer, hogs, skunks, ticks, etc. The Florida website for nuisance wildlife (which, again, can apply to almost anything not protected through endangered/threatened species status or migratory bird/marine mammal laws) also includes this link for snakes:

Said rattlesnake may not be a threat to you but who is to say of the next person that comes along? Or if the snake changes position while you are gone from behind the flowerpot to under your doorstep. I have participated in the relocation of a baby rattler or two but most of the time people elect to simply kill them. More convenient and conceivably less risky to just squish them.

I guess if we look at this from strictly a safety perspective(killing vs relocating) it depends on which of these two actions is less dangerous...

Also, do killing and relocating have the same effec?(reduction of densities of venomous snakes around property?). They might have very little effect as immigration will be a problem.

Lets go ahead and assume that other methods of management have been taken to discourage rattlers already.

Joseph S. wrote:Said rattlesnake may not be a threat to you but who is to say of the next person that comes along? Or if the snake changes position while you are gone from behind the flowerpot to under your doorstep.

The snake is only dangerous when you can't see it, and you can not kill it when you can not see it. Once you can see it to kill it, it is no longer a danger to your or anyone, because you can avoid it.

Joseph S. wrote:Said rattlesnake may not be a threat to you but who is to say of the next person that comes along? Or if the snake changes position while you are gone from behind the flowerpot to under your doorstep.

The snake is only dangerous when you can't see it, and you can not kill it when you can not see it. Once you can see it to kill it, it is no longer a danger to your or anyone, because you can avoid it.

If you see the snake, you best remove it one way or the other unless your house is full of seasoned herpers. The reason being is that it only takes a few minutes for the snake to move off to a better hiding spot where you can't see it.